Up the Mighty Liberals! #inmalcolmwetrust

[Froggy]

Doctor told me I have a fungus on my leg, and that 97% of all science says it can be treated with fungus cream. So of course I trust the 3%. Tomorrow my leg comes off.

Well as an accurate analogy for AGW and its current standing, a few years ago you chopped your leg off because you thought 97% of dr's predicted this fungus was a major issue that would only get worse if not dealt immediately. At the same time your friend with the same fungus decided to let it ride, now in the present your friends fungus did absolutely nothing to his leg and he's fine and dandy whilst you are down one leg and a bitter cripple.

[unfnknblvbl]

So... do you have a peer-reviewed source for your claims that everything is good now, or are you just spouting shit because it's winter, and currently it's colder than it was in December of 2009, so therefore climate change is a load of crap?

[mech]

Doctor told me I have a fungus on my leg, and that 97% of all science says it can be treated with fungus cream. So of course I trust the 3%. Tomorrow my leg comes off.

Says the man who doesn't believe in relativity or time dilation.

[Vzzzbx]

Uh, from an argument eight years ago? Wow. And I thought I was bad at grudges.

[mech]

Have you changed your mind?

[Peppermint Lounge]

A world temperature record? er yeah no, no it wasn't.

Hottest June since records began, I assume you can only be using one source for this and the NOAA. Come back to me when they finally decide what month was the hottest ever as they keep fiddling with their dataset (of course always increasing heat). Hasn't warmed for 17 years now, you seem to live on an alternate Earth where you are finding warming that never actually happened.

Oh Froggy, even free market conservatives have debunked the assertion that the NOAA were fabricating temperature data.

Plenty of published material explaining why the warming trend has flattened in recent years, never mind the hottest years on record fall within the past 17 years.

Keep trying with the warmer winters theory for the US drop in emissions, you'll eventually get there in the end to the real reason.

Really. I suspect you got your figures citing US emissions today at the same level as 1995 from the USEPA.



You’re happy to reference that info. They go on to say:

The decrease in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in 2012 was a result of multiple factors including: (1) a
decrease in the carbon intensity of fuels consumed by power producers to generate electricity due to significant
decrease in the price of natural gas compared to the slight increase in the price of coal; (2) a decrease in
transportation sector emissions attributed to a small increase in fuel efficiency across different transportation modes
and limited new demand for passenger transportation; and (3) much warmer winter conditions resulting in a
decreased demand for heating fuel in the residential and commercial sectors.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downlo ... Trends.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It’s not me trying the warmer winters theory on, it’s the same organisation whose data you’re referencing too.

They won't get their direct action plan through because the cross bench won't vote for it and they won't push it, it'll have the same effect of the carbon tax which is zilch so it's another waste of money.

Well we’ll have a government-appointed bunch of people pulling weeds in the name of climate change at least. The Green Army made it through the Senate.

[Froggy]

So... do you have a peer-reviewed source for your claims that everything is good now, or are you just spouting shit because it's winter, and currently it's colder than it was in December of 2009, so therefore climate change is a load of crap?

yes, the actual temperature observations. The one spouting shit is you, it's clear you won't be happy unless the world actually is warming to hell even when it is clearly not doing what you have been told it is going to for the last 30 years of dud predictions. What astounds me is that it's completely unfalsifiable to people like you, there is absolutely nothing that you will accept except the world heating to a dismal end. You guys are sooking over a carbon tax that was going to do absolutely nothing to fix the problem you are so fixated on as well, unfknblvbl

[Froggy]

Pep still not there, the reduction in US emissions isn't because of some slightly warmer winters, hey it was -2 in chicago all winter instead of -3 I've used sooo much less heating!!

[Froggy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... -data.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data"

Here's the real kicker to, NOAA no longer acknowledges the existence of satellite data in their press releases. Why's that? fraud

[GeneraL CyberFunK]

You do realise that a carbon tax did work in a certain way.. it made people consider their energy bill and reduce waste. I mean... regardless of tax dollars accrued and whatever.. isn't the main purpose of well.. addressing climate change is to reduce waste and to be more efficient?

[Peppermint Lounge]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... -data.html

"Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data"

Here's the real kicker to, NOAA no longer acknowledges the existence of satellite data in their press releases. Why's that? fraud

Yeah that's the piece. Like I said it's been debunked. Not just by climate change advocates either. Here it is from someone way over there on your side, Anthony Watts - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/25/o ... at-part-1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[itch]

You do realise that a carbon tax did work in a certain way.. it made people consider their energy bill and reduce waste. I mean... regardless of tax dollars accrued and whatever.. isn't the main purpose of well.. addressing climate change is to reduce waste and to be more efficient?

No, the main purpose of carbon dioxide economics is to consolidate power of a global authority.

[Froggy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... -data.html

"Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data"

Here's the real kicker to, NOAA no longer acknowledges the existence of satellite data in their press releases. Why's that? fraud

Yeah that's the piece. Like I said it's been debunked. Not just by climate change advocates either. Here it is from someone way over there on your side, Anthony Watts - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/25/o ... at-part-1/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

er: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/29/n ... nth-again/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"NOAA has been accused by others of “fabricating” data, and while that is a strong word that I don’t like to use, it looks to be more and more accurate."

[Peppermint Lounge]

It’s like we’re playing poker but instead of chips we have piles of pasted URLs. I see your blog link and embedded YouTube clip and raise you another embedded graph and unattributed quote.

Thanks for reminding me Anthony Watts is a sceptic. The post you link to doesn’t detract from why the Telegraph article + featured data you pasted earlier is wrong. Even this later article doesn’t have Watts embracing your conspiracy that the NOAA fraudulently fake climate data to a deliberate end. Straight after your quoted line Watts continues:

That said, I don’t believe this is case where somebody purposely has their hand on a control knob for temperature data, I think all of this is nothing more than artifacts of a convoluted methodology and typical bureaucratic blundering. As I’ve always said, never attribute malice to what can be explained by simple incompetence.

Christopher Booker on the other hand, the reputable tabloid columnist you were so quick to link to, he’s a big one for conspiracy theories.

I found this article good for explaining that which you pass off as fraud - http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/03/d ... -fudge-tem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Froggy]

Watts has to be careful he isn't sued. The NOAA temperature set is outright fraud data again why do they no longer reference the satellite temps?

[Peppermint Lounge]

The Stephen Goddard stuff you linked to was picked up by The Telegrpah, Fox News, Breitbart, etc. and all of them relayed colourfully the claim the NOAA were conspiring to fake temperature data to skew global warming. Why then do you feel Watts is holding back his language for fear of being sued? Watts assured us in his blog post linked above:

"If this were really an important finding you can bet they and yours truly would be talking about it and providing support and analysis."

Probably simpler to just take his words at face value.

I don't know why satellite temps no longer feature in NOAA info if that is in fact the case. Maybe the satellites are old. Whatever the real reason I'm sure it's pretty boring.

[Vzzzbx]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-11/p ... cs/5662568" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Most Australians no longer think it matters which major party is in government according to new research, which also reveals a significant decline in support for democracy over the past seven years.

The study, conducted by the Australian National University (ANU) in partnership with the Social Research Centre, found satisfaction with democracy slumped from 86 per cent in 2007 to 72 per cent when attitudes were surveyed again in June.

The number of Australians who believed it made a difference which party was in power plunged from 68 per cent to 43 per cent in the same period.

ANU Professor Ian McAllister said Australian democracy still enjoys high levels of support compared to overseas but he is concerned by the loss of belief in a meaningful vote.

"Efficacy, the belief in the effectiveness of your vote, is really quite an important indicator in the health of a democracy," Professor McAllister said.

After the unprecedented instability of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments, Professor McAllister says the Abbott Government should have generated renewed political confidence but for the first time in the poll's history, the election of a new government did not see increased satisfaction.

Nearly 20 per cent of eligible voters, about 3 million Australians, effectively opted out of the last federal election by either failing to enrol to vote, not showing up to vote or voting informally.

They tend to be younger, poorer, outer-metropolitan and rural, according to Dr Tim Battin from the University of New England.

He says most of them are not apathetic but they believe the political system excludes them.

"There is a very big difference between apathy and disenchantment and disengagement," Dr Battin said.

"To be disenchanted with political options is not to be apathetic, it's to take a conscious decision that the system is failing."

[Cletus]

Agreed. Kevin Rudd is an arsehole.

[Madmya]

Closer to your communism dream Vzz.

[pilonv1]

I believe in Clive

[guttermouth]

So poor people don't have cars, I guess that's why they don't have jobs cause they can't drive there or it's just to far to drive

[unfnknblvbl]

Yeah, I love that. And Centrelink expect job seekers to travel up to 90 minutes for jobs. Where I live, a 90-minute bus trip gets you to the other side of town. A 90 minute drive though, is 150km, which is equally unreasonable due to needing a full tank of petrol every other day to do it.

...and poor people don't drive...

[Vzzzbx]

I can't remember the last time I saw anyone be so bad at their job. This guy is hopeless at everything.

[GeneraL CyberFunK]

That's effectively what I feel too... and about the Liberal Government in general. How can you fuck up so badly and so frequently? These verbal gaffes are things that 16yr old girls are meant to say.

[Froggy]

Context is everything. He has still got a long way to go to be as bad as mr guarantee a surplus each year Swan. Where you equally as outraged when there is a comment that people on a combined 150k a year are rich and can then pay more tax etc. Hockey needs to learn thet the media is not his friend